[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

As I've said multiple times, and as you argue against almost immediately, It would look like a very large multinational police effort. It would of course also incorporate economic and political efforst as well. Saudi Arabia might be induced to fund less terrorism, for instance, if we stopped selling them weapons systems and dancing through the flowers holding their hands, etc.

Really? What might compell Saudi Arabia to stop being the largest purveyor of hatred ad intolerance in the world???

I also struggle to see how the selling of weapons systems leads to the direct funding of radical Islamic organizations. I mean, i know you're certainly no relativist, but you'll have to connect the dots on that one for me. As I'm sure you're quick to point out, we're the biggest seller of arms in the world. We sell them to a lot of countries who manage to not finance terrorism, so yeah, clue me in here.

"(which a lot of liberals are fond of saying)."

Thank goodness you do not fall pray, as I so often do, of demonising and lumping together political blocks.

Cute, let's try to have an honest conversation though and post my full statement, k? Super:

"I think the Bush plan has been pretty clear, and it actually makes more sense than some random WOT that looks more like a "criminal investigation" (which a lot of liberals are fond of saying)."

Originally Posted by mburbank

As I've said multiple times, and as you argue against almost immediately, It would look like a very large multinational police effort.

So the next time you're going to accuse me of being too general, try not being so predictable.

And since we're on that topic, let's look at your global Carmen San Diego version of the WOT.

What the hell does a "police effort" look like? Are you on the same page as Ziggy, who seems to think that bumping off random people will stop radial Islam?

okay, so you support economic actions, too. Does that mean sanctions? You do realize that we had sanctions on Iraq for years, and it certainly didn't democratize Iraq. it did however provide Saddam with the means to demonize us and blame all of their suffering on us. Is that how you'd combat Islamic extremism, Max?

I'm sure this moral, anti-real politic explains our invasion of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and why when we discovered who ran the worlds nuclear blackmarket, we demanded his extradition to the Hague. Well, at very least harsh punishment. I mean house arrest. Anyway, Paksitan says he's under house arrest, and why would our allies lie to us? Your... argument, here, Kev, would hold water if it's relationship with our foreign ppolicy were more than coincidental. Are you perhaps suggesting we develop a foriegn policy with these goals? Traditional warfare against states that support terrorsim? Maybe I'm not clear on what it is you're trying to say here.

No, no, you're absolutely right. We should invade Saudi Arabia, only the site of the most holy religious site in the islamic world. We should also invade pakistan, a nation with a 97% muslim population.

Going after the nations that support terrorism doesn't mean you act retarded. We should be pressing Saudi Arabia harder, which is why I'v frequently said this war can be fought better. That being said, President Bush never said the best solution was to invade every muslim nation. The Saudi regime has made steps in the right direction, but the fact that they still have so far to go only proves how far the Middle East in general has to go.

Women are running for office and voting in Kuwait for the first time ever. Lebanese citizens are demanding that Syrian intervention in their affairs cease. Afghanistan and iraq have held the first democratic elections in the history of their respective nations. I know you can't acknowledge these successes, mainly due to your Bush blinders, but these are monumental things that are directly related to the United States' invasion of Iraq and policy towards terrorist supporting states.

I feel as if your argument is:

"Yes, I agree, we went with bad reasons and we could have gone to better places, but now we're here lets just keep doing what we're doing and maybe it will morph into a being about good reasons and everybody there will forget about the bad reasons."

That isn't quite my argument, which I've stated many times, so no need to repeat myself.

And who said they were bad reasons? The reaons we were provided were erronious, flawed, and poorly gathered. That doesn't mean the "real" reasons we invaded Iraq weren't in our own national interest. maybe that's not "realpolitik" enough for you Mr. Kissinger, but you can make a pretty solid argument both politically and militarily that it made sense to topple Iraq, because they were the weakest of the supposed "axis", and they were presumed to be the Arab nation with the largest middle class. This factors into the development of democracy, which was certainly a consideration in invading them.

I'd say if his goals for the WOT are anything like yours, they are a muddy disaster. He needs a LOT more money and it can't come from borrowing. He may well need a draft. He needs a fully funded, decent health care system for returning servicemen and women and an agressive anti-corruption campaign so we aren't throwing away the money we have. I don't want the WOT you do Kev, but if Bush does, he's not being very realistic about what it would take.

Well maybe you can sell me on your "police effort" approach. I'm fairly certain if we just got Bin Laden all of this would end, book 'em, Danno!

A draft isn't necessarily a bad idea. He should roll back his tax cuts and raise taxes, demand some national sacrifice here at home, invest in a broad scientific initiative here at home (call it like a "Manhattan Project") to get us on alternative and renewable fuels by 2025.

Be a little bit bolder, stop being so beholden to energy interests, among other things. But for the love of God, let's hope he doesn't pretend like you that radical islam isn't the real problem we are facing by pretending this is just some "criminal matter."

I do not think military force, particularly occupation, addresses the problem of terrorsim in speciffic and rabid fundamentalism in general.

Right, and it's a good thing that's not all we're doing.

it's not quite a "police effort", but it's cose.

"I know, I mean, what good does it do the Iraqis to not be living under Saddam any longer???"

I'm not certain, since I have never lived under either Sadaam or their current straits. It is my opinion from what I've read and thought about, that their lives were not that great in either scenario. I'm sure your certainty that their lives now are three whole question marks better arises from something pure enough that you have no cause to even wonder if we've brought more misery than was there to begin with.

No, see I support you holding these doubts. I think you should keep saying it, because it will only sound more and more ridiculous with every passing month and year. i mean, heck, can you really know how bad it was there? You didn't live there, this is all second hand, maybe it was great!

Can you honestly not set your Bush hatred aside for a moment and objectively look at the obvious, exponential improvement in Iraq?

I would say that since all the things you note took place and continue to take place in the presence of our vigorous military presence, we do not know if this is progress. If something lasting comes out of it in the end, yes. If it can only even struggle along while we surround it with blazing guns, then no

According to the Brookings Institute:

* Per Capita GDP (USD) for 2005 is forecast to increase from the previous year to $1,051. In 2002 it was $802.

* Increases in GDP for the next five years: 16.8, 13.6, 12.5, 7.8, and 7.2.

* On an index of political freedom for countries in the Middle East, Iraq now ranks fourth, just below Israel, Lebanon, and Morocco.

* Electrical output is almost at the pre-war level of 3,958 megawatts. April's production was 3,600 megawatts. In May of 2003, production was only 500 megawatts. The goal is to reach 6,000 megawatts, and was originally expected to be met in 2004.

* The unemployment rate in June of 2003 was 50-60%, and in April of this year it had dropped to 25-40%.

* The number of U.S. military wounded has declined significantly from a high of 1,397 in November 2004 to 430 in April of this year.

* As of December 2005, countries other than the U.S., plus the World Bank and IMF, have pledged almost $14 billion in reconstruction aid to Iraq.

* Significant progress has also been made towards the rule of law. In May 2003 there were no trained judges, but as of October 2005 there were 351.

* In May of 2003, Iraqi Security Forces were estimated at between 7,000-9,000. They numbered 250,500 in March of this year.

* As of January 2006, 64% of Iraqis polled said that the country was headed in the right direction.

* Also as of January 2006, 77% said that removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.

Even if Iraq doesn't become America's 51st state, even if they struggle for another 20 years to build a functioning republic, we will STILL have enacted clear and definite progressive change in Iraq. We removed an evil man from power, one who tortured his people and threatened his bordering neighbors with force.

but I think we are there because too many on both sides find that idea engaging, romantic and religous. I think a great war is what the terrorists, the fundamentalists, Jihadist, dead enders, etc. desire most of all, and I think we have agreed to theri playbook since the moment we went to war with a country W wanted to settle scores with instead of pursuing a more thoughtful honest policy.

"HELP ME! I'M MELTING IN MY OWN WHITE, LIBERAL GUILT,AND I CAN'T RESIST MY INITIAL IMPULSE TO ALWAYS BLAME MY OWN COUNTRY FOR EVERYTHING! AHH!!"

Despite all of the talk, radical muslims do NOT want a real war. It's a war, if truly provoked, that I believe would awaken sleeping gians in places like Europe and Asia. Hell, I almost wish it would happen so that we weren't fighting this fight by ourselves.

They was us to retreat from their world, Max. If they could, I have no doubt that they'd wipe us all out with the push of a button. But they can't do it, so the best they can hope for is retreat. They count on folks like you to inflate the power of the insurgency, to blame all innocent life lost on us, and to constantly scream about how our own soldiers are only ruining Iraq.

Japan is going to reduce their troop levels, and other nations have done the same. This is precisely what the extremists want in Iraq, and maybe you can help them get it! Go go go! You're entitled to your free speech, Max!

I think we are throwing money and bodies down a rathole, almost totally ignoring actual homeland security and sticking our heads in the sand over rising sea levels which could make a Billion people refugees. THAT's the kind of shit that can cause Great Wars.

Oh sweet Jesus. Max, can your ideal government multi-task? Can they handle fighting a war against our enemies, while also protecting the enviroment? Mine can.

maybe a "police effort" would also stop global warming, I dunno.

Are anti-war and isolationist synonamous to you? I always thought there were other ways to work for change in other countries, I didn't realize if I thought all out war was a costly mistake that made me an isolationist.

They are the flipside of the same coin. I mean, why do you think progressive Republicans, old guard republicans, and Left-wing Democrats could both team up against war in the early 20th century?

Retreating from the world has never served us well, Max. We can't afford to do it now.